Clutch hub bearing BT 90-17

[xlfan]

Does anyone know if there is dimensional differences between OE 37906-90 and 37906-11 double-row clutch hub bearings?

[Ohio HD]

To my knowledge the width is what changed. They became narrower with the 37906-11. Below is a link to a discussion between myself and FSG. I measured the newer bearing width at 21.00mm and FSG has a measure of 27.00mm for the 37906-90.

Also below is a page from the summer 2010 dealers meeting showing the bearing being thinner, and the relocation of the snap ring grove in the and the clutch basket. This was courtesy of FSG.


https://harleytechtalk.com/htt/index.php/topic,71573.msg782037.html#msg782037

[Ohio HD]

Also here are the running part number changes for the bearing, hub and clutch assembly. HD doesn't list the clutch basket separately, so the assembly part number should have a changed basket for the relocation of the bearing snap ring, as does the 37554-11 clutch hub. 


Year 2010

37906-90
BALL BEARING

37554-06A
CLUTCH HUB ASSEMBLY

37813-06A
CLUTCH ASSEMBLY



Year 2011

37906-11
BALL BEARING

37554-11
CLUTCH HUB ASSEMBLY

37817-11
CLUTCH ASSEMBLY

[FSG]

 


Early Bearing

Koyo  5207  C3
ID d ( mm )   35
OD D ( mm )   72
thickness B ( mm )   27


Late Bearing


Below info compliments of Ohio HD

So old style bearing:
37906-90 CLUTCH BALL BEARING
ID ( mm )   35
OD ( mm )   72
thickness ( mm )   27


And new style bearing:
37906-11 CLUTCH BALL BEARING
ID ( mm )   35
OD ( mm )   72
thickness ( mm )   21

[FSG]

with the removal of real estate in the re designed clutch basket they could no longer use the old bearing a narrower one was required

[Ohio HD]

FSG, do you remember what drove the real estate change behind the clutch? For the life of me I can't recall, and I made no notes to that effect back then.

[xlfan]

Thanks alot 😊

[xlfan]

The factory has actually "improved" the setup with a sub-standard, proprietary, less sturdy bearing? That can't have been thought through, neither by the beancounters nor the enginneers?

[Dan89flstc]

The factory has actually "improved" the setup with a sub-standard, proprietary, less sturdy bearing? That can't have been thought through, neither by the beancounters nor the enginneers?

Is there some history of failures of the new bearing that make you say it is sub standard?

[FSG]

FSG, do you remember

am scratching the memory ......  give me a few days   

[Ohio HD]

FSG, do you remember

am scratching the memory ......  give me a few days   

I guess it could have been as simple as a less costly bearing (less cost to them) as part of cost reductions. 

[xlfan]

The factory has actually "improved" the setup with a sub-standard, proprietary, less sturdy bearing? That can't have been thought through, neither by the beancounters nor the enginneers?

Is there some history of failures of the new bearing that make you say it is sub standard?

Maybe sub standard is a wrong word for a bearing that no bearing vendors carries in their lists? Maybe non-standard is a better word?

[Buglet]

 Could have it been done to give it more wiggle room so the clutch plate would disengage easier to find neutral.   

[xlfan]

Could have it been done to give it more wiggle room so the clutch plate would disengage easier to find neutral.   

My guess would be that more wiggle room along with the autoadjuster, would make finding neutral ven harder.